## Facts

- The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) uses a tiered system, allowing senior prosecutors to assign some tasks to junior staff for efficient case management.
- This practice involves distinguishing between routine administrative work and central prosecution functions.
- In this case, the claimant challenged a situation where a police officer made a charging decision, alleging this breached established procedures requiring prosecutor involvement.
- The central complaint was that non-prosecutors were permitted to decide charges in complex cases, potentially undermining fairness in prosecution.

## Issues

1. Whether prosecution decisions, specifically application of the Full Code Test, can be delegated to individuals who are not approved prosecutors within the CPS.
2. Whether allowing non-prosecutors, such as police officers or legal assistants, to make key prosecution decisions compromises the fairness of the process.

## Decision

- The High Court held that central prosecution duties, including the application of the Full Code Test, must be performed solely by approved prosecutors.
- The decision to charge in complex cases cannot be delegated to non-prosecutors like police officers or legal assistants.
- The Court affirmed that while routine or support tasks may be assigned to staff, core decisions requiring prosecutorial judgment are non-transferable.
- The judgment reinforced that only the CPS has the authority to make prosecution decisions, maintaining the integrity of the process.

## Legal Principles

- Delegation within the CPS is permissible for administrative or routine functions but not for core judgments requiring prosecutorial skill and judgment.
- The Full Code Test, as set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, is a non-delegable duty reserved for approved prosecutors.
- Proper prosecutorial decision-making upholds public confidence in fair and legally valid prosecutions.
- The ruling is consistent with previous authority, notably R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] 1 AC 345, affirming the necessity for prosecutors to personally apply critical decision-making standards.

## Conclusion

The decision in Castle v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWHC 587 establishes strict boundaries on task delegation within the CPS, confirming that only approved prosecutors may apply the Full Code Test. This preserves the fairness and integrity of prosecution decisions by ensuring critical functions remain with qualified individuals.
